4.5 Article

Perceptions of Australian remote area nurses about why they stay or leave: A qualitative study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1243-1251

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13603

关键词

management; remote area nurses; remote health; retention; workforce

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the perspectives of experienced Australian remote area nurses about staff retention strategies. The findings suggest that teamwork, effective and flexible management practices, and maintaining cultural and social connections are crucial for retaining remote area nurses.
Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the perspectives of experienced Australian remote area nurses about remote nursing staff retention strategies. Background: There is low retention of remote area nurses in remote Australia. Retention of remote area nurses can be improved by a supportive environment including good management, professional development and supervision. Method: This is a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with seven registered nurses with a minimum of 3 years remote area nursing experience. Participants were interviewed by phone, with the interviews audio-recorded then transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: Participants had on average 12 years of experience as a remote area nurse. They valued teamwork, effective and flexible management practices and the ability to maintain their own cultural and social connectedness. A flexible service model with regular short breaks, filled by returning agency nurses to enable continuity of care and cultural connections, was seen as a viable approach. Conclusion: Flexible management practices that encourage short breaks for remote area nurses may increase retention. This would need to occur within a supportive management framework. Implications for Nursing Management: Management strategies that reduce isolation from personal and social networks can increase the retention of skilled remote area nurses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据